Soil tillage methods by years interaction for harvest index of maize (Zea mays L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B: Soil and Plant Science

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 75-81

  Bocianowski, Jan ^a   Nowosad, Kamila ^b   Szulc, Piotr ^a  

^a POZNA UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Poland)

^b WROC AW UNIVERSITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Poland)

Author keywords

AMMI model; biplot; corn; stability

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050552886     PISSN: 09064710     EISSN: 16511913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09064710.2018.1502343     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abakemal D, Shimelis H, Derera J., 2016. Genotype-by-environment interaction and yield stability of quality protein maize hybrids developed from tropical-highland adapted inbred lines. Euphytica 209:757–769. doi: 10.1007/s10681-016-1673-7
2. Alvear M, Rosas A, Rouanet JL, Borie F., 2005. Effects of tillage systems on some biological activities in an ultisol from southern Chile. Soil Tillage Res. 82:195–202. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.06.002
3. Berti M, Fischer S, Wilckens R, Hevia F, Johnson B., 2010. Adaptation and genotype × environment interaction of flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) genotypes in South Central Chile. Chil J Agr Res. 70:345–256. doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392010000200006
4. Burgess SM, Mehuys GR, Madramootoo CA., 1996. Tillage and crop residue effects on corn production in Quebec. Agron J. 88:792–796. doi: 10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050017x
5. Cornelius PL., 1993. Statistical tests and retention of terms in the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model for cultivar trials. Crop Sci. 33:1186–1193. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300060016x
6. Echarte L, Andrade FH., 2003. Harvest index stability of Agrentinean maize hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crop Res. 82:1–12. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00232-0
7. Edwards JW., 2016. Genotype×environment interaction for plant density response in maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Sci. 56:1493–1505.
8. Fischer RA, Edmeades GO., 2010. Breeding and cereal yield progress. Crop Sci. 50:85–98. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0564
9. Gajda AM, Przewłoka B., 2012. Soil biological activity as affected by tillage intensity. Int Agrophys. 26:15–23. doi: 10.2478/v10247-012-0003-0
10. Gauch HG., 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44:705–715. doi: 10.2307/2531585
11. Gauch HG, Zobel RW., 1990. Imputing missing yield trial data. Theor Appl Genet. 79:753–761. doi: 10.1007/BF00224240
12. Gollob HF., 1968. A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika 33:73–155. doi: 10.1007/BF02289676
13. Hamza MA, Anderson WK., 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems. A review of the nature causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 82:121–145. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009
14. Hristov N, Mladenov N, Djuric V, Kondic-Spika A, Marjanovic-Jeromela A, Simic D., 2010. Genotype by environment interactions in wheat quality breeding programs in southeast Europe. Euphytica 174:315–324. doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-0100-8
15. Ion V, Dicu G, Dumbravă M, Temocico G, Alecu IN, Băşa AG, State D., 2015. Harvest index at maize in different growing conditions. Rom Biotech Lett. 20:1095110960.
16. Kemanian AR, Stockle CO, Huggins DR, Viega LM. 2007. A simple method to estimate harvest index in grain crops. Field Crop Res. 103:208216. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.06.007
17. Li J, Xie ZR, Wang RK, Ming B, Guo QY, Zhang QG, Li SK., 2015. Variations in maize dry matter, harvest index, and grain yield with plant density. Agron J. 107:829834. doi: 10.2134/agronj14.0522
18. Mandel J., 1961. Non-additivity in two-way analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 56:878888. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1961.10482132
19. Mehari M, Tesfay M, Yirga H, Mesele A, Abebe T, Workineh A, Amare B., 2015. GGE biplot analysis of genotype-by-environment interaction and grain yield stability of bread wheat genotypes in South Tigray, Ethiopia. Commun Biometry Crop Sci. 10:1726.
20. Nowosad K, Liersch A, Popławska W., Bocianowski J., 2016. Genotype by environment interaction for seed yield in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Euphytica 208:187–194. doi: 10.1007/s10681-015-1620-z
21. Nowosad K, Liersch A, Poplawska W., Bocianowski J., 2017. Genotype by environment interaction for oil content in winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Ind J Genet Pl Br. 77:293–297. doi: 10.5958/0975-6906.2017.00039.6
22. Ozkan B, Ceylan RF, Kizilay H., 2009. A review of literature on productive in agricultural production. J Appl Sci Res. 5:796–801.
23. Purchase JL, Hatting H, van Deventer CS., 2000. Genotype × environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. S Afr J Plant Soil 17:101–107. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2000.10634878
24. Rea R, De Sousa-Vieira O, Díaz A, Ramón M, Briceño R, George J, Niño M, Balzano-Nogueira L., 2016. Genotype-environment interaction, mega environments and two-table coupling methods for sugarcane yield studies in Venezuela. Sugar Tech. 18:354–364. doi: 10.1007/s12355-015-0407-9
25. Sinclair TR, Bennett JM, Muchow RC., 1990. Relative sensitivity of grain yield and biomass accumulation to drought in field-grown maize. Crop Sci. 30:690–693. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000030043x
26. Szulc P, Jagła M, Nowosad K, Bocianowski J, Olejarski P., 2017. Path analysis in assessment of cause and effect dependencies of yield structure components in maize cultivars differing in genetic profiles. Fres Environ Bull. 26(12):7309–7318.
27. Zobel RW, Wright MJ, Gauch HG., 1988. Statistical analysis of yield trial. Agron J. 80:388–393. doi: 10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000030002x